Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1127 (RAJ)

State v. Shiv Raj Singh

2016-08-03

KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Kailash Chandra Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 05.08.1992, passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar (for short "the learned trial court") in Criminal Case No. 65/1991 by which the learned trial court acquitted the accused- respondent Shivraj Singh from the offences under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 376 IPC. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 05.10.1991 complainant Parvati filed a complaint (Ex.-P1) before the SHO, Police Station, Sangariya. In the said complaint, it is mentioned that on 05.10.1991 when she was in field about 5:00 PM in evening, she was cutting grass for her goats from neighbouring farm, where accused-respondent Shivraj Singh came and forcibly took her to Narma farm where he committed rape with her. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR No. 362/1991 was registered in the Police Station, Sangariya and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, police filed the charge-sheet against the accused-respondent. 3. After hearing the charge arguments on 04.02.1992, learned trial court framed the charges for the offence under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and the STribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The accused person denied the same and claimed trial. 4. During the trial prosecution examined witnesses namely Parvati (PW-1), Chandrawati (PW-2), Manohari (PW-3), Hari Ram (PW-4), Suresh Kumar (PW-5), Birbal Ram (PW-6), Dr. Sushila Choudhary (PW-7), Rameshwar Lal (PW-8) & Girdhari Ram (PW- 9). 5. The learned trial court recorded the statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 31.07.1992 in which accused-respondent denied all the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution but no witness in his defence was got examined by him. After hearing final arguments, the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondent. 6. Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State and the learned counsel for the accused-respondent. Perused the material available on record. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts by the documentary and oral evidence but without properly appreciating the evidence on record, learned trial court committed erred in acquitting the accused- respondent for the offence under Section-376 IPC read with Section-3(2)(v) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Perused the material available on record. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts by the documentary and oral evidence but without properly appreciating the evidence on record, learned trial court committed erred in acquitting the accused- respondent for the offence under Section-376 IPC read with Section-3(2)(v) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The minor contradiction as pointed out cannot be resulted into the total rejection of prosecution version when the commission of offence by the accused-respondent is proved. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the impugned judgment and submits that learned trial court after considering all the facts & circumstances of the case and evidence educed by the prosecution rightly appreciated the evidence and acquitted the accused-respondent and same does not require an interference by this Court. 9. I have considered the submission advanced by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused-respondent. 10. Parvati (PW-1) is the alleged prosecutrix, her age was 19 years at the time of recording her statement before the court. In her statement she stated that the incident was about five and a half months old. So from this fact, it appears that on the date of alleged incident, she was above 18 years old and was major. She in her complaint (Ex.-P1) stated that at the time of incident Shivraj Singh @ Mithu Singh came there and forcibly took her in the farm of Narma and committed rape and dropped her in the field whereas in her cross-examination she stated that she does not know other name of accused Mithu Singh. 11. According to statement of Parvati the incident was caused by a person namely "Mithu Singh" but the accused in present case is Shiv Raj Singh. But as per statement of prosecutrix there is no evidence came on record which clearly shows that Mithu Singh is the nick name of Shiv Raj Singh. 12. According to Parvati when Mithu Singh dashed her in the field some injury on her back might have caused but according to statement of Dr. Sushila Choudhary (PW-7) only on the backside of right shoulder, there was one injury and all the remaining injuries were in front side on the person of Parvati, so medical evidence does not support her statement. 13. Sushila Choudhary (PW-7) only on the backside of right shoulder, there was one injury and all the remaining injuries were in front side on the person of Parvati, so medical evidence does not support her statement. 13. The complainant Parvati, in her examination in chief stated as under:- ^^eqyfte esjs lkFk ,d ?k.Vk rd [kksVk dke djrk jgkA U;k;ky; }kjk iz'u & iz'u%& D;k rqe ,d ?k.Vk ;k feuV esa le>rh gks\ mRrj%& eSa ?k.Vk ;k feuV esa ugha le>rhA xokg us crk;k fd vHkh c;ku nsus esa ftruk le; yxk mlls FkksM+k de le; [kksVk dke djus esa yxk FkkA ¼djhc chl iPphl feuV yxs Fks½A** 14. So, according to statement of victim Parvati (PW-1) the incident occurred in a time span of 20-25 minutes. When she was in field with Manohari and Santaro, no other person was there with her. They were with her during the cutting of grass. For a time period of about 20-25 minutes when Manohari & Santaro did not find Parvati naturally they might have gone in search of Parvati but what happened during this period, was not explained in the statement of Parvati. The Ghaghara, Kurta and Odhana worn by the prosecutrix at the time of incident were not produced by the prosecution in the court. Though, Manohari (PW-3) in her statement stated that she saw that accused dashed Parvati into Narma farm and she ran away from there. This behaviour of Manohari is not in natural course in a situation when somebody applied force on her friend (Parvati) in front of her but she remained silent and ran away from the spot which is not possible. 15. In her statement Parvati stated that:- ^^fQj eSa thouflag ljnkj dh dkj ij laxfj;k esa vius llqj o lkl ds lkFk vk;h Fkh esjk ifr lkFk ugha vk;k FkkA thouflag ljnkj igys ljiap FkkA laxfj;k igqap dj thouflag ljnkj ds yM+ds ds ?kj x;s tks laxfj;k esa odhy gS mldk uke lq[kjkt flag gSA nj[okLr lq[kjkt odhy us cksydj fy[kk;h Fkh ftl ij esjk vaxwBk yxk;k Fkk og nj[okLr odhy lkgc ljnkj us [kqn fy[kh Fkh tks laxfj;k Fkkuk esa eSaus is'k dj nh FkhA** 16. The complaint (Ex.-P1) was written by some advocate in Sangariya and the prosecutrix Parvati put her thumb impression on this report only. The complaint (Ex.-P1) was written by some advocate in Sangariya and the prosecutrix Parvati put her thumb impression on this report only. So in this situation, it can not be presumed that the fact mentioned in the report Exhibit-P1 is all those facts which happened with Parvati. 17. Dr. Shushila Choudhary (PW-7) stated that she examined Parvati regarding the incident of rape. She in her examination in chief stated as under:- ^^ikoZrh ds lkFk esjh jk; esa ikoZrh ds lkFk cykRdkj gksus ds ckcr eSa fuf'pr jk; ugha ns ldrh Fkh ysfdu mlds lkFk laHkksx gksus ds ckcr bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk Fkk tSlk fd 'kknh'kqnk vkSjrksa esa gks ldrk gSA cykRdkj ds laca/k esa jklk;fud ijh{k.k fjiksVZ vkus ij gh fuf'pr jk; nh tk ldrh gSA** 18. Thus, medical evidence does not clearly show that rape was committed with Parvati. 19. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the material available on record, I am of the opinion that conclusion drawn by learned trial Court is fully according to evidence available on the record and the learned trial court rightly acquitted the accused-respondent from the aforesaid offences which does not require any interference by this court. 20. Hence, this appeal deserves dismissal which is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.